Search form

The "weapons effect"

“Guns not only permit violence, they can stimulate it as well. The finger pulls the trigger, but the trigger may also be pulling the finger.”

—Leonard Berkowitz, Emeritus Professor of Psychology, University of Wisconsin

In 1967, Leonard Berkowitz and Anthony LePage conducted a fascinating study.[1] First, participants were angered by a person pretending to be another participant (called a confederate). Next, participants were seated at a table that had a shotgun and a revolver on it—or, in the control condition, badminton racquets and shuttlecocks. The items on the table were described as part of another experiment that the researcher had supposedly forgotten to put away. The participant was supposed to decide what level of electric shock to deliver to the confederate who had angered them, and the electric shocks were used to measure aggression. The experimenter told participants to ignore the items on the table, but apparently they could not. Participants who saw the guns were more aggressive than were participants who saw the sports items. This effect was dubbed the “weapons effect.”

The weapons effect occurs outside of the lab too. In one field experiment,[2] a confederate driving a pickup truck purposely remained stalled at a traffic light for 12 seconds to see whether the motorists trapped behind him would honk their horns (the measure of aggression). The truck contained either a .303-calibre military rifle in a gun rack mounted to the rear window, or no rifle. The results showed that motorists were more likely to honk their horns if the confederate was driving a truck with a gun visible in the rear window than if the confederate was driving the same truck but with no gun. What is amazing about this study is that you would have to be pretty stupid to honk your horn at a driver with a military rifle in his truck—if you were thinking, that is! But people were not thinking—they just naturally honked their horns after seeing the gun. The mere presence of a weapon automatically triggered aggression.

Research also shows that drivers with guns in their cars more likely to drive aggressively.[3] A nationally representative sample of over 2,000 American drivers found that those who had a gun in the car were significantly more likely to make obscene gestures at other motorists (23% vs. 16%), aggressively follow another vehicle too closely (14% vs. 8%), or both (6.3% vs. 2.8%), even after controlling for many other factors related to aggressive driving (e.g., gender, age, urbanization, census region, driving frequency).

Weapons can even make people aggressive when they cannot “see” them because they are presented subliminally. In a study conducted in our lab[4], for example, participants who were exposed to weapon words (e.g., gun) for only 17/100 second were more aggressive afterwards than were participants exposed to nonaggressive words (e.g., water).

Human beings can identify potentially dangerous, threatening stimuli such as spiders and snakes very quickly. This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective because some spiders and snakes are poisonous, and our ancient ancestors who could identify them quickly were more likely to avoid them and live to pass on their genes. Recent research shows that people can identify guns as quickly as they can identify spiders and snakes.[5],[6],[7] These findings are very interesting because guns are modern threats and cannot be explained using evolutionary principles. Yet guns are a far more dangerous to people today than spiders or snakes. Poisonous spiders (e.g., Black Widows, Brown Recluses) kill about 6 Americans each year.[8] Poisonous snakes (e.g., rattlesnakes) kill about 5 Americans each year .[9] In comparison, guns kill about 31,000 Americans each year.[10]

Several studies have replicated the weapons effect. A review of 56 published studies confirmed that the mere sight of weapons increases aggression in both angry and nonangry individuals.[11] Perhaps the weapons effect occurs because weapons are closely linked to aggression in our brains.

If the researchers dug deeper into the psychological details of each person I bet many exhibit an inverse "Weapons Effect." I am guessing for others but I am in that category. I carry a gun when hiking and backpacking on wilderness trails far removed from civilization. Once when hiking with a weapon my friend criticized a group of men for shortcutting between switchbacks (causes erosion and is considered bad trail etiquette.) Things got heated but I purposely said nothing and stood with my gun on the far said of my body with arms crossed as to not exhibit a threat. We all went our separate ways with nothing more than verbal sparring. My point is if I didn't have the gun I would've been in the verbal fray with my friend. Since I had a gun and I felt responsible to keep calm and not add to the escalating tension.

I realize that the majority of gun murders are caused by the street thugs and criminals who are very susceptible to the "Weapons effect." Ironically, this culture of gun violence is largely caused by the the laws banning drugs which have done little to stop drug use yet have increased violent crime by orders of magnitude in the poor communities.

I have some questions about this statement:

"guns kill about 31,000 Americans each year"

What percentage of these deaths are in the lower-class, drug dealing communities? (i.e. Criminal-on-Criminal Crime?)

How many innocent people defend their own lives and their families lives using guns?

In communities that have banned guns like Washington DC and Chicago, how do the gun crime rates compare with places such as Phoenix, AZ where guns are everywhere?

Even if all guns were rounded up how would the murder rates change, especially in the violent areas?

My point is: The problem in America is culture, not guns. Of course, the philosophical group most interested in rounding up guns is also the one most responsible for the culture that brings the violence to us - Liberalism.

Just wondering what the technical names for these conditions might be. There are personalities that wish to control other people, to achieve some authority to tell them how they should live their lives. And there are those people that display an unreasoning fear of something, like those videos of people who jump, shreiking, up onto furniture when they see a harmless insect crawling across the floor. The "anti" side of the right of civilians to own weapons seems to attract both.

Do more research as to how the change from spider and snakesw shifted to weapons and guns. We have the ability to change this "aggressive" reactions is our society. Furthers studies of other countries and societies that vary in their use and response to weapons could shed a lot of light. There is the ability to teach the mind that weapons should elicit agressive behavior.

If this is "research," I'm a labradoodle! This is the typical modus operandi of the left, where the predetermined outcome dictates the methodology.
The dead giveaway of their bias is "guns kill about 31,000 Americans each year," which is false — KILLERS killed those people. Guns are not capable of any willful acts, and are nothing but a tool whose purpose is decided by its possessor. If guns kill people, or elicit aggressive behavior, then my laptop writes my posts and emails for me, plus it elicits writing behavior.

What was (intentionally) left out of the "31,000 killed by guns every year" claim is that 2/3 of those were suicides, and that even a complete ban on guns would not change the suicide rate. The UK has some of the strictest gun controls, and lowest rates of gun ownership in the world, and has a suicide rate of 11.9 per 100,000 persons. Effectively identical to the US rate of 12.0 per 100,000 persons.

As Ozzy Osbourne once said in an interview with the New York Times: "I keep hearing this [expletive] thing that guns don't kill people, but people kill people. If that's the case, why do we give people guns when they go to war? Why not just send the people?"

Of course there were wars before guns were invented, but it is much easier to kill people, and a lot more of them, from a safer distance after guns were invented than with the weapons that existed before guns were invented.

Guns also make self-defense far easier, which is why police carry them rather than relying on their bare hands.

But the real evidence that your theory is nonsense is that the number of guns in the US continues to grow, by tens of millions of new guns every year, and the number of people legally carrying guns has skyrocketed to over 12,000,000 at present. Yet even as the number of guns, gun owners and gun-carriers has risen, the murder and gun-violence rates have dropped and continue to drop.

We have more guns and less violence. Which blows a big gaping holes in your hoplophobic theory.

I think you have misunderstood the weapons effect. This effect occurs when the mere presence of weapons (e.g., guns) increases aggression. No studies have been conducted on whether the mere presence of weapons increases violent criminal behavior. Also, the weapons effect is about the effects of seeing weapons, not using them.

If you love China so much, you should move there. It's pretty much impossible to legally own a firearm unless you have connections and the money to pay off the right people in that corrupt government. China is a statist's utopia. The laws are harsh and the people have little freedom. Just a warning, expect to get raped by the police if you're ever caught spitting in public.

Well, have fun in China with Ozzy. You two are probably on the same intellectual level.

No, of course I don't disagree with that, you dumb chucklefuker. Still, the implication of what you're saying is that guns can be used to kill, therefore we must ban guns because people are mindless robots that turn into the terminator when they see a firearm.

"Is that a shotgun?
COMPUTING...COMPUTING...COMPUTING...
Must kill Sara Conner."

You're just another tool for the anti-gun nuts. You should try to make your half-assed articles a little more subtle. There's bias dripping off every poorly constructed sentence.

If you really cared, you'd write an article about how drunk driving kills way more people than guns. To quote the great Leonard Berkowitz,

"Cars and alcohol not only permit violence, they can stimulate it as well. The mouth drinks the beer, but the beer may also be steering the wheel of the Honda Civic as it drunkenly side swipes the school bus."

Who is talking about banning guns? I am talking about the tradeoffs of gun ownership.

Nobody is talking about banning cars either, but we sure made them a lot safer, and implemented laws to reduce accidents (e.g., lower speed limits, seat belts, car seats for infants and children).

Although my article did not talk about it, we can also make guns much safer (e.g., universal background checks, finger print technology that only lets the legal owner fire the gun, limit magazine size, etc).

Also, I am not sure why you are behaving so aggressively toward me, whether it is because of the mere presence of weapons or some other factor, but I don't appreciate it.

I spit coffee all over the screen. Dude, there's already hundreds of millions of firearms in the U.S. alone. Nobody is going to buy a $400 gun with a $600 fingerprint scanner. We'll have the laser pistols from star wars before fingerprint technology becomes even remotely feasible. You must be some kind of a moron. I shouldn't of expected better. Psychologist is one of those jobs that's so easy a caveman can do it.

I never said you supported a gun ban, but when you write a pseudo-scientific article that's so blatantly anti-gun, it's not hard to draw conclusions. You show your true colors when you suggest limiting magazine size. In some of the less free parts of the country, legal magazine capacity went from 30+ rounds to 15. Then it went from 15 rounds to 10. Then it went from 10 rounds to 7. Now it's at 5 with soccer moms pushing for 3 round limits.

Guess what, it doesn't affect crime. Criminals who carry a gun don't use 5 round magazines. Most of them carry knives because they can't even afford a gun. Plus, it's not like you can't make magazines for free using a 3d printing machine. It's only a piece of plastic or metal with a spring inside. We should ban springs so people can go back to carrying samurai swords.

BAN ASSAULT SWORDS NOW! WHY WOULD A CIVILIAN NEED SUCH A DANGEROUS WEAPON? IF A NINJA BREAKS INTO YOUR HOUSE, THEN YOU JUST SEND A TELEGRAPH TO THE POLICE!

(you need to look up the word aggressive. i don't think it means what you think it means. i get the feeling you consider anyone who doesn't share your simple minded views to be hostile. you're clearly very insecure. why else would you respond to every negative comment)

Universal background checks are needed and this would have to be done on a federal level to be effective otherwise it's a waste. If you can't buy a gun in Chicago, you can go to Indiana for example. Or more the case, just pick one up on a street corner or gun show.

Personally I have no problem with rifles and other long-barrel weapons. You can use these for hunting OR self-defense. Handguns, on the other hand, are designed as anti-personnel machines purely. Sure, you can target shoot with them but I doubt very many spend that kind of money purely for target shooting.

We have seen far too many instances of killing an innocent with a handgun. A handgun is too convenient to use, easy to carry and extraordinarily deadly in effect. Plus, roughly half of all suicides in the U.S. are from firearms (see http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm). Of those, I would suspect a vast majority are from handguns. Again, they are convenient, easy and deadly.

Assault weapons - AK types - are different. Originally designed for military use, they can turn a group into a lot of dead people quickly. Easy peasy. I'm really not sure what their function is outside of killing (whether for defense or offense). Personally I think many of their owners just want to play army and pretend. I don't worry about this group. The ones I worry about are those that hear voices or just have a basic evil streak.

If you have a knife and want to use it, you have to REALLY think about it and then physically do it. With a gun, you point, exert a little finger pressure and it's done. With an assault or semi-automatic weapon, it's point, shoot, shoot, shoot, shoot....

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear enough. I said most criminals carry knives over guns because most criminals are very poor and desperate individuals. There are more deaths every year from cheap hammers than from ar-15's. It's the media that makes people like you believe that one in ten children will end up getting shot with an assault weapon.

You say that universal background checks are needed, but then you say two sentences later that people can just buy guns on the street. Well, Chicago is an easy city to buy a gun on the street. This is a state with hilariously strict gun control and it happens to be one of the most violent places in the country.

You say that you have no problem with rifles, but then you say you're against ak type rifles because they're assault weapons. Again, this contradiction stems from ignorance. Assault weapons are automatic firearms and they were all banned from import in the 1980's. They cost tens of thousands of dollars and are simply not used by criminals.

You say you're against handguns because they're "anti-personnel machines" that can't be used for hunting, but handguns actually are used for hunting. Also, there's no such thing as an "anti-personnel machine". You made that term up and were probably thinking of anti-personnel mines. Educate yourself by going to a gun range if you want to see people using handguns "purely for target shooting". They exist in large numbers.

You seem to think that the millions of gun owners in this country are people who "hear voices", have a "basic evil streak"', or mainly just want to "play army". Even more disturbing, you believe that people can't resist the urge to use a gun on themselves or others because it's easier than using a knife. I guess the only thing stopping people from using knives is that they're so complicated. Dang, the average person must be evil or incredibly suicidal in your mind.

Your last paragraph shows how little you know about firearms. Only years of brain-rotting video games could give somebody the impression that semi-auto guns are weapons of mass destruction capable of shooting a million baby killing rounds in one second. I hope nobody ever breaks into your house to steal your xbox.

If someone does break into your house, you'd better hope it's during the day and you aren't home. When criminals break in at night, they assume someone's home and they go straight for the bedroom. Enjoy your two hour wait time for police to show up and trace chalk around your body. Hopefully, they aren't the trigger happy cops that shoot wildly at criminals and end up hitting the neighbors instead.

Yes, the nypd is again recently guilty of that, but this time they're charging the criminal with assault on the two innocents who were shot. Here's the punchline, the criminal was unarmed and has mental problems. It was just some idiot playing in traffic. I'll never understand the anti-gun nuts. They don't trust themselves, their family, or their closest friends with a gun, but they think the police would risk life and limb to save them.

n. Irrational, morbid fear of guns(coined by Col. Jeff Cooper, from the Greek "hoplites," weapon). May cause sweating, faintness, discomfort, rapid pulse, nausea, sleeplessness, and diarrhea at the mere thought of guns. Hoplophobes are common and should never be involved in setting gun policies. Point out hoplophobic behavior when noticed, it is dangerous, sufferers deserve pity, and should seek treatment. When confronted, hoplophobes typically go into denial, a common characteristic of the affliction. Often helped by training, or by coaching at a range, a process known to psychiatry as "desensitization," often useful in treating many phobias. Also: Hoplophobe, hoplophobic.

Hoplophobia is listed in The Encyclopedia of Phobias, Fears, and Anxieties, Third Edition as well as the Oxford Dictionary of Psychology.

It's worth noting that the "weapons effect" has been criticized for decades. Numerous attempts at recreating the experiment have failed to prove that the mere presence of weapons and gay pornography makes people naturally aggressive like the author of this article fervently insists.

Perhaps the original experiment was nothing more than a joke. It wouldn't be the first. Every year, an award called the Ig Nobel Prize is given for ten humorously trivial achievements in scientific research. The author of this article was this years recipient of the Ig Nobel Prize in psychology. He was on a team of idiot savants who discovered that people find themselves more attractive when they're intoxicated.

A study on violence by Gary Kleck and Karen McElrath demonstrated a "reverse weapons effect". According to the wiki page on the weapons effect, the mere presence of weapons was,
"Strongly associated with threatening situations that did not escalate to a physical attack. In the case where there was a physical attack and the presence of a weapon, there was also less probability of injury."

The article goes on to mention some hick town where,
"Another example of a "reverse weapons effect" is shown in Kennesaw, Georgia. In 1982, a city ordinance was passed in Kennesaw that required all heads of household within the city to own at least one gun... crime rates in Kennesaw dropped 89% overall in the first year after the law was enacted. As of 2007, the city had also not had a single homicide take place with a gun, and crime rates were still much lower than the national average. The Kennesaw, Georgia city ordinance directly opposes the ordinance passed in the town of Morton Grove, Illinois. In Morton Grove, a city ordinance was passed that made it illegal for anyone other than a police officer to own a gun. Instead of decreasing violence, the decrease in the number of weapons present actually led to a 15% increase in violent crime in the first year."